noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> <original>
> The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided.
> </original>
> <proposed>
> The unnecessary introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided.
> </proposed>
> - or -
> <proposed>
> The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be minimized.
> </proposed>
>
> Presumably there are, from time to time, good reasons for introducing new
> schemes. Introduction of such schemes SHOULD NOT be avoided IMO. The
> original suggests it's always a bad idea.
Yes, but isn't this exactly the semantic of SHOULD - do it unless
there's a reason not to? Also I'd like to leave the language strong
here because there does seem to be a hunger out there to invent them, cf
WebDAV.
> <original>
> It is often necessary to compare URIs for equivalence to determine whether
> they identify the same resource. URI schemes vary in their definitions of
> equivalence.
>
> For example, URNs
> </original>
>
> I understand and agree with what's intended by this statement. On the
> other hand, it seems to unintentionally open the broader question of
> taking two arbitrary URI's and determining using some general means
> whether they refer to the same resource. For example, does
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml) refer to the same resource as
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006). I believe that, at the
> moment, it does.
>
> <proposed>
> It is not in general possible to determine by inspection whether two
> different URI's refer to the same resource. Particular URI schemes MAY,
> however, mandate equivalence for particular sets of URIs using that
> scheme.
>
> For example, URNs ...
> </proposed>
Yep, good catch. Will fix up & republish. -Tim